George Tames/New York Occasions Co./Getty Pictures
Of their dogged reporting of the Watergate scandal, Washington Publish reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein uncovered the crimes that compelled Richard Nixon to resign the presidency in August 1974.
That model of Watergate has lengthy dominated in style understanding of the scandal, which unfolded over 26 months starting in June 1972.
It’s, nevertheless, a simplistic trope that not even Watergate-era principals on the Publish embraced.
For instance, the newspaper’s writer throughout Watergate, Katharine Graham, pointedly rejected that interpretation throughout a program 25 years in the past on the now-defunct Newseum in suburban Virginia.
“Generally, folks accuse us of ‘bringing down a president,’ which after all we didn’t do, and shouldn’t have completed,”Graham mentioned. “The processes that brought about [Nixon’s] resignation had been constitutional.”
Graham’s phrases, nevertheless correct and incisive, scarcely altered the dominant in style interpretation of Watergate. If something, the intervening 25 years have solidified the “heroic-journalist” fantasy of Watergate, which I tackle and dismantle in my e-book “Getting It Flawed: Debunking the Best Myths in American Journalism.”
David Hume Kennerly/Getty Pictures
Nonetheless in style, the heroic-journalist fantasy is an enormous exaggeration of the impact of their work.
Woodward and Bernstein did disclose monetary hyperlinks between Nixon’s reelection marketing campaign and the burglars arrested June 17, 1972, at headquarters of the Democratic Nationwide Committee, in what was the sign crime of Watergate.
They publicly tied outstanding Washington figures, equivalent to Nixon’s former legal professional basic, John Mitchell, to the scandal.
They gained a Pulitzer Prize for the Publish.
However they missed decisive parts of Watergate, notably the fee of hush cash to the burglars and the existence of Nixon’s White Home tapes.
Nonetheless, the heroic-journalist fantasy turned so entrenched that it may stand up to disclaimers by Watergate-era principals on the Publish equivalent to Graham. Even Woodward has disavowed the heroic-journalist interpretation, as soon as telling an interviewer that “the mythologizing of our position in Watergate has gone to the purpose of absurdity, the place journalists write … that I, single-handedly, introduced down Richard Nixon.
So why not take Woodward at his phrase? Why has the heroic-journalist interpretation of Watergate continued by way of the 50 years since burglars linked to Nixon’s marketing campaign had been arrested on the Watergate advanced in Washington?
Glosses over intricacies
Like most media myths, the heroic-journalist interpretation of Watergate rests on a basis of simplicity. It glosses over the scandal’s intricacies and reductions the way more essential investigative work of particular prosecutors, federal judges, the FBI, panels of each homes of Congress, and the Supreme Court docket.
It was, in spite of everything, the courtroom’s unanimous ruling in July 1974, ordering Nixon to give up tapes subpoenaed by the Watergate particular prosecutor, that sealed the president’s destiny. The recordings captured Nixon, six days after the housebreaking, agreeing to a plan to discourage the FBI from pursuing its Watergate investigation.
The tapes had been essential to figuring out that Nixon had obstructed justice. With out them, he doubtless would have served out his presidential time period. That, a minimum of, was the interpretation of the late Stanley Kutler, one in every of Watergate’s main historians, who famous: “You needed to have that form of corroborative proof to nail the president of the US.”
The heroic-journalist fantasy, which started taking maintain even earlier than Nixon resigned, has been sustained by three associated influences.
One was Woodward and Bernstein’s “All of the President’s Males,” the well-timed memoir about their reporting. “All of the President’s Males” was printed in June 1974 and rapidly reached the highest of The New York Occasions bestseller listing, remaining there 15 weeks, by way of Nixon’s resignation and past. The e-book inescapably promoted the impression Woodward and Bernstein had been very important to Watergate’s consequence.
Extra so than the e-book, the cinematic adaptation of “All of the President’s Males” positioned Woodward and Bernstein on the decisive heart of Watergate’s unraveling. The film, which was launched in April 1976 and starred Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman, was relentlessly media-centric, ignoring the work of prosecutors and the FBI.
The e-book and film launched Woodward’s super-secret supply, “Deep Throat.” For 31 years after Nixon’s resignation, Washington periodically engaged publicly in guessing video games in regards to the supply’s identification. Such hypothesis typically pointed to W. Mark Felt, a former senior FBI official.
Felt openly denied having been Woodward’s supply. Had he been “Deep Throat,” he as soon as informed a Connecticut newspaper, “I might have completed higher. I might have been more practical.”
The “who-was-Deep-Throat” conjecture saved Woodward, Bernstein and the heroic-journalist fantasy on the heart of Watergate conversations. Felt was 91 when, in 2005, he acknowledged by way of his household’s lawyer that he had been Woodward’s supply in spite of everything.
It’s small marvel that the heroic-journalist fantasy nonetheless defines in style understanding of Watergate. Aside from Woodward and Bernstein, no personalities outstanding in Watergate had been the themes of a bestselling memoir, the inspiration for a star-studded movement image, and the protectors of a legendary supply who eluded conclusive identification for many years.
W. Joseph Campbell doesn’t work for, seek the advice of, personal shares in or obtain funding from any firm or group that will profit from this text, and has disclosed no related affiliations past their tutorial appointment.